The War Over John McCain

As I noted the other day, I should now be considered a McCain supporter, though I'm also an ex-Giuliani and -Thompson supporter. As such, back-to-back editorials by Hugh Hewitt and Bob Novak piqued my interest, and in the first case sort of got my blood boiling. Hewitt is an unabashed Romney partisan, and the author of the interesting insider book A Mormon in the White House, so his assault on McCain is to be expected. But it's all a rehash of old stuff, and if McCain's crawling back into contention, wouldn't that suggest that bygones are becoming bygones?

It's the criticisms of McCain where I'm not "just" another Republican - sure I differ from the Senator on issues like McCain-Feingold and an enhanced interrogation - but I've never understood the lingering bitterness over the Gang of 14 deal. Partly this stems from the fact that some of the nominees are too conservative for my taste, but partly it's grounded in what I believe is an honest assessment of politics. Changing the rules as Frist threatened to do with the "nuclear option" wouldn't have just changed them to our benefit - they would also have benefited Democrats if they take the White House in less than eleven months. I'm willing to accept fewer nominated judges at present if that means fewer Democratic-nominated judges shoved down our throat. The counter argument is of course that allowing these seats to go unfilled gives Democrats more opportunities to do just that, to which I don't have a great reply. Accusing him of grandstanding is also baseless - he's one of the best-loved Republican Senators and had more of his peers been willing to meet him half-way on any number of things, "grandstanding" would have become "supporting." There's more to be said about this but, unfortunately, I don't feel like discussing it at this moment.

I'm more in agreement with the Prince of Darkness. He too understands that McCain isn't likely to win any superlatives at the GOP prom, but doesn't resort to Hewitt's bitter assaults while recognizing what Hewitt refuses to: that McCain is better poised to win a general election than Romney. If Romney can't open up a real lead in either Iowa or New Hampshire in spite of his massive infusions of cash, while Huckabee and McCain are both making surprising runs, doesn't that suggest that Mitt isn't the strong candidate in the general election?

Discombobulated thoughts, I apologize.

Daily Kos Stupidity

I'm a regular reader at DailyKos, though I never know whether I'll get my fair share of chuckles or an urge to up-chuck. I recently had a reaction that was somewhere between the two as I read a diary entitled "A Gift You Can Give Yourself: A Democratic Cabinet."

First off, talk about counting your chickens before you hatch, even as a motivational tool. That was a chuckle.

Some of the diarist's nominations then provoked an up-chuck. Russ Feingold for AG? Jim Webb for SecDef? Joe Biden for Secretary of State is somewhere between the two; I imagine we'd soon find our ambassador to New Delhi expelled after a crack about Indian being a country of more than a billion potential 7-11 managers.

And then I hit the writer's suggestion for Secretary of the Treasury, and I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, but I knew that I had to quote it in full:

Denise Nappier (CT)

Why always someone from Wall Street? Denise Nappier has been Connecticut's State Treasurer since 1998 and has more experience than most of Wall Street (and would maybe be a little more independent from Wall Street, just saying).

Why always someone from Wall Street? Because when the economy's behaving like a sick puppy, you need a Wall Streeter to convince Wall Street that the sky isn't falling. Because the job of the Treasury Secretary is basically to be a liaison to Wall Street and an outsider isn't going to do a good job of it. Mine is a poor explanation, but it's one of those that if you don't get it, there's no helping you. While we're at it, I'm sure my town manager would be a great pick for Fed Chairman when Bernanke steps down.

But you know what's also remarkable? Not a single Republican in the lot - not even a Dick Lugar or Chuck Hagel ("R"). Hell even a Republican would find one or two Dems for his cabinet - Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller obviously jump to mind first, but it'd be difficult to get a non-Democratic HUD Secretary through Congress, to name one example. Which of course will be a whole new can of worms; if a Republican wins the White House, Democrats will ensure that he's got no Cabinet to govern with.

Bhutto Assassinated

I woke up this morning to the tragic news that Benazzir Bhutto had been assassinated, apparently shot at close range by Islamists as she campaigned in Rawalpindi, and less than two weeks before the elections scheduled for January 8th. I haven't heard yet, but the fact that an assassin succeeded in getting so close brings to mind the death of Indira Gandhi, when her own security detail turned on her; this isn't to equate a democrat like Bhutto to a disastrous president such as Gandhi, but merely to note the similarities at their death. [According to Powerline, there was a parallel attack on Nawaz Sharif, though it seems less determined and was obviously unsuccesfull.]

Musharraf has already disclaimed any knowledge or responsibility in the matter; the necessity of such a disclaimer is in itself a disquieting thing.

Michelle Malkin and Law Hawk both have lengthy, multi-update posts worth perusing with a bevy of links to follow. More of the same here, here, here, here, and here courtesy of Instapundit.

The last of those links (NRO's Corner) includes reactions from many of the presidential candidates who are rapidly turning this into a football. Even Huckabee has a statement out, though I imagine his morning briefing consisted of locating Pakistan on a map. CQ responds to Bill Richardson's hare-brained notion of forcing Musharraf out of power - the Captain lays out the several obvious layers of idiocy here. And though Thompson made a nice statement to the media, his team screwed up royally, sending out an email entitled "Great News This Morning;" while they probably didn't know about the death of Bhutto before hitting send, it's still a stupid mistake that they'll have to play a bit of D on today. Finally, Podhoretz notes that this morning's bloodshed will require primary voters to pay attention to international events and snap out of the domestic daydream that they've been in for the last several weeks and months (likely a product of our progress in Iraq, which Democrats dare not mention).

VDH, too, writes on Pakistan, a piece that might serve as an epitaph to the deceased, looking for a silver lining in her death. In closing, I think it's best to cite Bhutto herself: "I didn't choose this life, it chose me." Rest in peace.

A Noteworthy Event

I should mention that, two days after the fact, I've realized my previous post was also my 500th post. Thanks to my handful of readers - feel free to share the love!

Dispatch from the Huckabus

Yes, Mike Huckabee calls his vehicle the Huckabus. And the Weekly Standard's Terry Eastland is aboard, discussing Huckabee's increasingly strident populism in an insightful article that's well worth reading.

Though neither would ever admit it, I see a lot in common (at least politically) between John Edwards and Huckabee. Both are smooth-talking Southerners, though while Huckabee was trying to convert the masses, Edwards was focused merely on a jury; both have to some degree repudiated the Bush administration's foreign policy, and espoused one of their own that is fundamentally naive. Both are playing to their party's core constituencies, though Huckabee is doing so with far more success than his Democratic counterpart. And most notably, both are espousing populist politics in increasingly aggressive tones. Both the parallels here are interesting - Edwards' conversion to Marxist rhetoric has been a matter of desperation; this wasn't so obviously his schtick in 2004. Huckabee, however, has embraced this air of "grievance" as he's risen in the polls - for him its opportunism. As Eastland points out, he's positioning himself against Romney both socially and economically, and doing both succesfully. Eastland goes so far as to suggest that the Huckabee campaign is attempting to realign the Republican Party (perhaps much the same way that Tancredo's one-trick pony campaign did with immigration).

To me, this effort is another reason to hate Huckabee. For years now, Republicans have largely had Democrats on the defensive economically - sure they still advocated stupid policies, but they were at least in favor of tax cuts; they'd conceded much of the economic middle ground to the GOP. A realignment such as Huckabee apparently envisions would do exactly the opposite - if populism became the order of the day, Republicans would be at a serious disadvantage to Democrats, whose constituencies are more universally in support of this. In contrast, a Republican nominee spouting populist trash would have to wage an intra-party civil war
to do so. Bottom-line: Huckabee's populism isn't just stupid (and bad economic policy), it's damaging long-term; as always, fear the law of unintended consequences.

UPDATE: Politico's Jonathan Martin has an interesting piece this morning situating Huckabee as the latest in a long line of Republican incumbents, including Robertson, Buchanan, and McCain. I don't know if I agree with all of it, especially the McCain part, however the second page is worth reading for the fervent religiosity that pervades Huckabee campaign stops, "polling data come alive," in Martin's words.

UPDATE 2: An interesting evangelical critique of Huckabee, thus meriting a religion tag on this post.

My Shifting Allegiances

I've been nobody's stalwart this political season, indeed I've followed a rather peripatetic route to my present position. I supported Giuliani early on, thinking that he had the best hope of becoming president. I switched my support to Thompson in the long run-up to his announcement, in hopes that he might be able to rally the conservative troops and peel enough independents away from Hillary or Obama to win. When, after finally announcing, Thompson proved a poor campaigner (one might almost say DOA), I returned to Giuliani. It's not that I don't like Fred, I think he's spot-on on many of the issues. My return to Giuliani was motivated by the belief that he might still be the best bet, which he was at the time. Finally, I think I've settled on John McCain. I supported McCain in 2000 (though I was all of 14 at the time), and am proud to support him again.

Why John McCain? First and foremost, his experience. He is the only candidate in either party with any substantive military service; he not only served, he suffered and sacrificed for this country. He's ornery and independent-minded, principled may be a better way to put it, on a whole range of issues. I don't agree with him on campaign finance, I wish he was a bit more conservative on immigration (though he's a border-stater with all that means), his comparing water-boarding (which does no permanent damage) to what the Vietnamese did to him (which has left him unable to raise his arms above his shoulders) irks me. But he understands the threat we're facing, he has a lifetime of public service, and he's a fundamentally good man. Here's to hoping he gets the nomination.

Hindus Pull an Islam

If the title doesn't make sense, the story itself does - Hindus protest use of gods on underwear. The government of India's Orissa state have asked the US government to somehow punish a US company for producing, well, underwear adorned with the likenesses of Hindu gods. Why? Because they claim it hurts "the religious sentiments of people." Never mind the fact that the US government can't do a damned thing about this (and thankfully so), what in god's(') name(s) is Orissa's government thinking here? Apparently, the website also "offended India" by portraying Nehru and the Indian flag on underwear. Next up? Italy suing because of those David boxers...

Oh and because I'm edgy like this, here's the offending undies (with Indian flag, can't find the deities).

Chris Cillizza's Stuck in History

I generally agree with, and always enjoy reading, Chris Cillizza's commentary at The Fix, but today I have to take issue. His long presidential Friday Line is generally uncharitable to Republicans, starting with the reasons the top five can't get the nomination, before conceding that Mitt Romney's best-situated to do so.

My biggest issue with the whole piece though, is his assessment of John McCain:

4. John McCain: The Arizona senator has had a good week. He won the endorsements of both the Boston Globe and the Des Moines Register and had a high-profile endorsement event in New Hampshire with Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.). McCain's campaign believes that his best chance to win New Hampshire is to follow his 2000 blueprint -- convince independents in large numbers to back his candidacy. Maybe. But won't that lead to a repeat of 2000 in South Carolina when Republicans refused to get behind McCain? (Previous ranking: 4)

What's my issue with that? The down-playing of the DMR and Manchester U-L endorsements (I'm still not certain of the value of Lieberman's contribution). But what really strikes me as myopic is his comment about McCain's performance in 2000 in New Hampshire and South Carolina. First off, it's not 2000. Then, his performance in New Hampshire may have hurt him in the Palmetto State but there was only candidate who could take advantage; if he's damaged in South Carolina, it's a tossup who will benefit. Further, given the nature of his insurgent candidacy in 2000, a single loss had the potential to be fatal - in 2008, that hardly seems to be the case. Further, between the two primaries, voters go to the polls in Michigan, where it's currently a two-man battle between McCain and Romney.

I also have to question his rankings. Romney at #1, I can see - he's the most viable candidate not named Huckabee in Iowa, and has leads in both New Hampshire and Michigan. He's also the best-funded. #3 Huckabee is leading in two states, Iowa and South Carolina. #2 Giuliani leads in Florida, which doesn't vote until the end of January - in the meantime, he could lose as many as four significant contests. And he's the #2? Really Chris, I know he's still got a lot of conventional wisdom behind him, but you can't "listlessness and sense of indecision within Giuliani's world," point out that he's not polling well in any of the four early states, and then still rank him #2. As much as I hate to say it, I think Huckabee's #2 in this horse race, and it's a tossup between Giuliani and McCain in third - where, to me, Giuliani's fundraising gives him the edge.

Interesting News from New Hampshire

The old news is that last Sunday, the Manchester Union-Leader endorsed John McCain. This Sunday, the Concord Monitor anti-endorsed (aka slammed) Mitt Romney. According to NYT's Adam Nagourney, the paper probably doesn't have much sway with Republican voters - but he makes no mention of independents, who can vote in either party's primary in New Hampshire. Still, it's an interesting hit piece; the media finally shows its true colors?

Time's Person of the Year - Drum Roll, Please...

Time has gotten around to announcing their "Person of the Year," an award that has lost much of its luster since last year's "You" cop-out. That being said, the smart money before the announcement was on Al Gore, or if they were honest, David Petraeus. But Time was tricky, and instead went with, wait for it, Vlad Putin. Da. I think their primary reason for the pick was the cutesy title - A Tsar Is Born. I almost would have been happy with the Goreacle. CQ's coverage is worthwhile, especially the part about how the voting shook out - Vlad, Goreacle, JK ROWLING, Hu Jintao, and then Petraeus. Back to that bit about honesty; JK Rowling? Did Britney Spears poll sixth? Two years, two stupid awards - adieu, credibility.

South Africa Takes A Big Step Backwards

South Africa is like Japan (until recently, at least) or Russia in that it's effectively a one-party state: become top dog in the ANC (African National Congress) and you're more or less assured the presidency. The ANC's political domination is of course in large part due to its role in the downfall of apartheid, but recent developments should make any sane observer wonder how much longer that should qualify them to keep power.

The party's national conference recently concluded; media reports make it out to be one part political, one part theatrical - think the Republican National Convention with dancing and chanting - and on the political side of things, Jacob Zuma became the heir apparent. His victory over incumbent president Thabo Mbeki was both surprising and unsurprising, but Zuma's triumph is enormously depressing.

This is the man who's tainted by corruption charges. More infamously, this is the polygamist who once raped a woman, claiming that her knee-length skirt was an invitation to do so, and despite the fact that she was known to be HIV positive; he later nonchalantly stated that he'd minimized risk of infection, as he'd taken a shower. Ladies and gentlemen, the next president of South Africa (and the former head of the National AIDS Council).

Which isn't to say Mbeki's an angel. HIV/AIDS is unequivocally the most important issue facing South Africa as well as the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa; Mbeki has publicly questioned the scientifically-proven link between the two. Instead, he claims it's a "disease of poverty," whatever exactly that means besides being a fine justification for a welfare state; his intransigence might also be rooted in his opposition to imperialism, despite the fact that Europeans left long before the AIDS epidemic exploded.

So why did the ANC do themselves and their country this disservice? The Tribune's correspondent (previous link) suggests that it's partially personal, partially political, with a dash of ethnicity to boot - Mbeki was a technocrat where Zuma is a populist, Zuma's populism has won him support of the party's left wing which Mbeki has alienated, Mbeki (like Mandela before him) is Xhosa, Zuma is Zulu (thus the polygamy). Some also think that perhaps the ANC will finally split, with Zuma forming a leftist party and Mbeki a center-left party. Coverage from the Times (New York) and Times ("Times") are also worth reading, though there is little novelty.

Foreign Affairs

If you can stomach Huckabee's faux pas, a host of other candidates have written for the international intelligentsia in Foreign Affairs, including McCain, Hillary, Richardson, Obama, Giuliani, Edwards and Romney. Again, consider the audience (which further begs the question whether Huckabee's error won't play well in the Heartland, an uncomfortable thought for me).

Dear Mike: I Hate You

Mike Huckabee was finally invited to play with the big boys (and girl), and authored a an article for the latest issue of Foreign Affairs. I didn't bother reading it because, to be brutally honest, reading Huckabee's "policy" arguments is torture to me; See-Dubya, however, has a higher pain tolerance than I, and glommed on to this gem: "Sun-tzu's ancient wisdom is relevant today: 'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.'" Problem is, as he points out, that wasn't the wise Sun-Tzu - it was Michael Corleone. Will he next attribute "a deal he couldn't refuse" to Attila, fitting as it may be. Did Cicero - or was it Cato? - lecture on the importance of being able for a bunch of men?

Sadly, I can't add an attribution to this point, but I recently read that Huckabee doesn't actually use speech-writers. Which begs the question whether another penned that ill-checked travesty for him, or whether (more ominously) he wrote it himself.

It's only a fact-check error, I admit, but it alludes to bigger issues: this is Foreign Affairs, not the Little Rock Arkansas Gazette. Is this campaign ready for prime time?
(h/t Powerline)

Thompson Grasping at Straws - And Getting A Big (?) Endorsement

Over the summer, I was briefly taken by a Fred Thompson candidacy - I liked his columns on Townhall, felt that he had an air of gravitas that was missing, and wondered whether he might be able to unite the Republican Party. I never entirely bought into the idea that he was Ronald Reagan reincarnate, but apparently his campaign still thinks he is. This time, their argument is that Thompson = Reagan because both can raise their hands. Or something. Anyways, that's what they have to say in a recent email:

Dear Friend of Fred, In the 1980 campaign, I worked for Ronald Reagan. I was proud to be part of his team. Now, I am just as proud to be part of Fred Thompson's team. That's why I am writing to seek your help today. In 1980, the defining moment for President Reagan was in a New Hampshire debate when he refused to kowtow to a belligerent moderator. Fred had a defining moment on Wednesday in the Iowa debate, when he refused the liberal moderator's demand to raise his hand to say yes or no to a complex question. The similarities were incredible. We have reached a critical juncture in the campaign--and we need you to step up once again. On Monday, Fred kicks off "The Clear Conservative Choice: Hands Down!" Bus Tour in Iowa. The tour will take Fred to 50 cities and towns across Iowa in the most aggressive retail campaigning of the whole campaign. Just in time for the Iowa caucuses on January 3! In fact, Fred will be there virtually the entire time except Christmas until the vote. We call it "The Clear Conservative Choice" tour because Fred is the only clear, consistent conservative in the race. He was conservative in the past, he is today and he will be so in the future. You can count on him. We just added the "Hands Down" to commemorate his dominating performance in the Wednesday debate. I believe this tour can make the difference in the Iowa caucuses. It will bring Fred in contact with thousands of caucus goers--it will build off the momentum of Fred's performance. Fred is really energized...and he's already come out swinging. But that's where you come in. We need "air cover" in the form of media for our tour and our first rate ground game. As you can imagine, Fred is the best on TV and his bold proposals have been highly praised by conservative publications and commentators. But we need additional funding for our final media push. Can you help? Could you contribute $25, 50, $100 or more today? Your contribution will help us get a powerful new ad on the air just as the caucuses conclude. We want 2400 donors in 24 hours to show the liberal media that we are tired of of their games. No More Hand Shows! Then send an e-card to all your friends and family letting them know you have had enough of the liberal media's games. Your help is crucial--can you respond immediately? Go here to contribute. I know things are tight this time of year, just before Christmas...BUT NOW IS WHEN WE NEED YOU THE MOST! Please make your contribution today. Help Fred keep his bandwagon rolling--and the momentum increasing! Just think about Fred's defining moment--and make your contribution now. The time is right--the time is NOW. Thanks so much for your help. Sincerely, William B. Lacy, Campaign Manager P.S. We're only 20 days away from the Iowa Caucuses. Your gift of $25, $50, $100, $500, $1000, or $2300 is crucial to Fred's success. Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy

But is all lost for Thompson? Perhaps not - as Chris Cillizza reports, he's picked up the endorsement of Representative Steve King, one of the most conservative members of the House. Two things - first off, Cillizza's hyperlink refers to a King endorsement of Romney...? Second of all, does this dampen the buzz about Huckabee being the only conservative in the field? I hardly think it suggests that the Huckabuzz is overstated, unless King things Thompson's the more electable candidate. Basically, I think the Representative just squandered his influence. Oops.

At Last!

Finals are over, therefore I blog.

Pope 1, Gore 0

His Holiness has once again "spoken truth to power." Usually this means idiots mouthing off to authority, but in an ironic inversion we have an authority showing the idiots up. He suggested, wise words of caution, that climate change science not be pressured by ideology. Hear that, Al? And now back to finals...

More Minnesota Senate

The Times would like us to know that Franken's not joking around; of course the Gray Lady being the Gray Lady, it's mostly a fluff piece. All the news that fits and what not.

Coleman Slams Franken

Liberal comedian Al Franken has attempted to show that his Senate candidacy in Minnesota isn't a joke. But Republican Norm Coleman's ad, documenting Franken's flip-flops on Iraq, makes it just that.


Oh and I have to wonder whether the Coleman campaign doesn't think Mike Ciresi, Franken's most significant challenger for the nomination, is the weaker of the two candidates in a general election. Neither candidate will be ill-funded - Ciresi is individually wealthy while Franken can tap into the pockets of the Hollywood elite. But whereas Franken may get some pass - he's a famous comedian and thus may be allowed some of the same flexibility that was afforded to Ahnold when he first ran for governor - Ciresi will be running more on the issues. I think Coleman's partially gambling that Iraq will continue to improve, and that Ciresi's opposition will begin to appear rather foolish.

Of course this sort of aggression on Coleman's part is entirely necessary. Minnesota's always been purplish, but is beginning to turn blue; in a presidential year, that only complicates things for him.
(H/t CQ)

Romney's Gamble

For months now, the Chatterati have been discussing whether or not Mitt Romney would have the gumption to give "the speech" - an address on his Mormon faith akin to JFK's famous airing of his "Catholic problem." Well, he's finally decided to roll the dice as CBS and the Politico report.

Both articles suggest - and my thoughts were similar before I read their take - that Romney's attempting to win back social conservatives who have recently been lured away by Mike Huckabee, and that Romney has also been goaded by Huckabee's recent performance in the polls.

That being said, I don't know if it's a wise gamble. Social conservatives attracted to Huckabee by his strong social stances (he's a Baptist minister after all) are, I think, unlikely to return to Romney. Huckabee's also likely helped among social conservatives who are feeling economically pinched - I've long believed his Bible-thumping populism to be a potent formula If Romney bombs, he's in real danger; if it's a home run, it still may have little effect.

It Just Keeps Getting Crazier

The headline could refer to college football, where last night's upset of #1 Mizzou and #2 West Virginia mean that the national title game is a wide open affair (Ohio State and...well make your case here). It's also a clarion call for a playoff.

But what I'm really referring to today is the Republican race, where in the last few days not only has Mike Huckabee taken his first lead in a poll (actually two), up 29-24 over Mitt Romney in a D-M Register poll, and up 28-25 in a Rasmussen poll conducted at almost the same time. So Iowa's up for grabs.

There's also Rudy's little scandal this week - which I don't think is a scandal at all, but I'll talk more about that in the future.

Of course the big news this morning - and it had been rumbling for hours before hand - is that the Manchester Union-Leader has endorsed John McCain. The Arizona Senator is all over the map in polls - sometimes a distant third, sometimes tied with Giuliani for second, but never really challenging Romney's lead. However, McCain won here in 2000 and given that this is his do-or-die state, he'll likely be focusing most of his efforts there in the coming weeks. It just keeps getting crazier.

Iowa Fireworks

Oh goody - the Des Moines Register has decided that having one crazy candidate (Ron Paul) on stage during presidential debates isn't enough. No, they need two - so they've gone ahead and invited repeat presidential candidate (and desperate Illinois Senate contender) Alan Keyes. Ed Morrissey's take on the story is worth reading.

However there seems to be a certain symmetry to this - Ron Paul represents the libertarian/socially moderate crazy wing of the party; Alan Keyes represents the religious zealotry/socially conservative crazy wing of the party.

Giuliani hasn't yet committed to this debate - wouldn't it be great if the other credible candidates backed out and left the stage to these two clowns? That isn't to call Tancredo and Hunter credible, just slightly more so than Crazy Uncle Ron and Keyes.

Huckabee Moves Into Two Spot

I've blogged a lot on Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who's starting to shake things up in Iowa.

Of course he was beginning to shake things up before the latest ABC/WaPo poll, released today: Huckabee polled at 24% - only 4 points behind Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the long-time leader in Iowa. The Post's piece rightly points out that much of Huckabee's boost came from Christian conservatives (which may factor into Giuliani's slump in their poll), but it'll be interesting to see if he gets a financial boost as well. ABC's story is long (4 pages) but worth at least skimming.

Yay Senate Races

Not really. My previous post was a quasi-in-depth/analytical look at Maine's Senate race; the good news there doesn't change the fact that others aren't exactly roses.

- Let's start with Virginia. Chris Cillizza has this as an almost sure-fire flip; he's right. Republican Jim Gilmore, a former Governor (he of the oh-so-brief presidential bid) is the presumptive nominee; he's also expected to be mauled by former Governor Mark Warner. Because, yes, Warner (he of the over-before-it-began presidential bid), is in; he's wildly popular and enormously wealthy. He projects a sufficiently blue-collar/good ol' boy image to be successful in traditionally Republican parts of the state - though the demographic swelling of the People's Republic of Northern Virginia is also to blame.

There's a silver lining, though, that only a blogger will indulge: I've heard rumors (without details, though from a credible source) that Warner's got at least one large skeleton in his closet. It's entirely plausible; if the Republican Party is aware, they weren't willing to use it when Warner ran for governor as the state GOP was in meltdown. That situation sounds eerily reminiscent of Illinois's situation in 2004, when Jack Ryan's self-destructing campaign meant that whatever dirt the party had on Obama (and again, I've heard well-founded rumors that there was dirt - you can't rise that fast in Chicago without something shady) was squirreled away for another day.

- New Mexico's also looking ugly, if only because Democrats have gotten themselves behind one candidate, Tom Udall (a member of that Democratic clan which has been so wildly successful in Mountain West politics). In contrast, Republicans are expecting a bruising primary between Representatives Heather Wilson (a moderate heavily targeted by the DCCC last cycle) and Steve Pearce (the self-anointed conservative candidate).

I hold out little hope for this race, but find it interesting as it illuminates the difference between the chairs of the NRSC and DSCC: Chuck Schumer's cleared the field for his boy, and he's making sure he gets it his way. John Ensign, despite the fact that people are pretty convinced Wilson's the more electable candidate, hasn't found a way to show Pearce the door. Ensign's failure to date may have something to do with the fact that the Republican Party as a whole has been a fundraising failure this cycle, allowing Pearce, no doubt funded by conservative groups, to keep up on the money trail.

This race is doubly painful because Wilson's campaign means she's not running for reelection to the House; in 2006, she won by a mere 875 votes out of some 211,000 cast. It's unlikely a Republican will win this open seat.

- Kentucky. Is it in play? Is it not? Cillizzas' got it at #10. Democrats are convinced McConnell's vulnerable. I'm still not sold on the prospect of a poisonous atmosphere next year, and Kentucky gave Bush nearly 60% of the vote in 2004. It's a state where Hillary Clinton's unlikely to poll well. In 2006, I would have said that Democrats had an argument; next year, I'm less convinced despite being gloomy about the Senate as a whole.

Good News in Maine?

Maine's a funny state: almost no one lives there (errant Canadians and moose aside). It's also a politically wacky state: Gore and Kerry won it, it has a Democratic governor and two Democratic Representatives, and two Republican Senators. Now Republican here is a loose usage of the term, less so than with Linc Chafee in Rhode Island, but Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are hardly conservative firebrands.

Democrats and the Left have been busy attempting to paint Senator Susan Collins, up for reelection next year, as an out of touch conservative as well as a warmonger. Democrats already have as good a candidate as they're going to get in Congressman Tom Allen, who represents Maine's 1st District - aka the inhabited one. The race has consistently been listed in the lower half of the top 10 most competitive races by Chris Cillizza (latest update is here, worth reading in full).

Yet things don't seem to be going the Democrats' way. Two polls show Snowe sitting pretty; one has her up 54-34, though it's worth noting that 12% of respondents (408 likely voters over an 18 day period) are presently undecided. The other (and I link to DailyKos because they commissioned it, though with a notably independent pollster) has 55% saying they'd reelect Collins and shows the incumbent with a 23 point lead over Allen.

Republicans meanwhile are trumpeting this race; this email was sent out by the NRSC yesterday:

Dear Republican Supporter,

The race in Maine is shaping up to be nothing like the Democrats imagined. They have mistakenly named Susan Collins as one of the most vulnerable Republican Senators running for re-election in 2008. But their predictions are turning out to be off the mark.

In a new poll out last week, Sen. Collins has a stunning 20-point lead. The poll shows Collins leading her opponent, Tom Allen, 54 percent -- 34 percent with only 12 percent of Maine voters undecided -- a great sign this early in the race. These results nearly mirror another poll out earlier this month that shows Sen. Collins leading the race with an even stronger 23 point lead.

Partisan Democrat U.S. Rep. Tom Allen cannot seem to gain the traction he is looking for to compete against Senator Collins, no matter how hard he tries. Though there is one thing that makes him stand out in the race: He has the grand distinction of being the Democrat that liberal extremist group MoveOn.org has donated the most money -- an astounding $250,000 so far this year. This distinction will show voters where his true loyalties lie.

Sen. Collins has an accomplished record of working hard for Mainers and its clear that the people of Maine respect that drive and dedication. Senator Collins has never missed a vote in the Senate and in contrast to that stellar record, her opponent, Rep. Tom Allen, has never had sponsored legislation enacted into law. It's this record that Tom Allen will be taking to Maine voters in his run against Sen. Susan Collins.

Not only is Tom Allen a MoveOn.org puppet, he's also an ineffective legislator.

Help us keep liberal, MoveOn.org-supported Democrat Tom Allen out of the U.S. Senate and support our efforts to ensure a Republican majority.

We're gaining the momentum we need to win. But we can't do it alone. Donate today, and together we will capture the U.S. Senate.

Thank you for your continued support.

Scott Bensing, Executive Director
National Republican Senatorial Committee

This is all well and good, but let's be clear: one race that doesn't look like a massacre in the making doesn't make up for Republican woes elsewhere. But I'll look at those separately.

When Chuck's Awed

So Michael Jordan's getting divorced; according to the Trib, his wife's getting a cool $15o million out of this. Your surprise, dear reader, is expected; what's not is that of Charles Barkley:

"You have to look at it two ways," Barkley, now an analyst for TNT, said. " 'Wow, that's a lot of money. Wow, that's a lot of money.' Then the second way, 'Damn, Michael's got a lot of money.' … Personally I would have to have somebody else write the check. You've got to be so [ticked] to write that check."

As he said, wow. And just because we're talking about His Airness, the greatest player ever to pull on a uniform - sorry Kobe, sorry 'Bron you guys aren't there yet - here's a great retrospective.

God was he good.

Other Overlooked Countries

While we're at it, Kosovo's prime minister, Agim Ceku (a name I can't spell from memory) writes on his country's potential future independence, though of course it's far from a sure thing. Another region of the world we should be paying far more attention to...

These two posts are making me want to write a larger piece on Russia in recent weeks; if I find the time, I'll get around to it.

What's Up in Georgia?

No, not the drought-stricken US state where Governor Sonny Perdue (a name only a Georgian could elect) led state leaders in a prayer for rain. The former Soviet Republic whose so-called Rose Revolution in 2003 was supposed to be a harbinger of better times for the country and the region, is suddenly looking like it's business as usual.

Specifically, President Mikheil Saakashvili (whose name I spell from memory having written a paper on Georgian democratization), appears to be little better than the former Soviet appartchnik Eduarde Shevardnadze he replaced. The Times tries to make him out to be a Caucasian Putin, but the jury's still out - either way, it's a corner of the world the United States would be wise to pay close attention to.

Bonds Charged with Perjury

The Home Run King* has finally gotten his comeuppance - indicted by a federal grand jury in San Francisco on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice; ESPN's got the story here.

Oh and while we're at it, the NFL reinstated, and the Miami Dolphins welcomed back, disgraced running back Ricky Williams. His antics will give at least some reason to watch the Fins for the rest of the season...right?

Fred Slams Mitt

Or tries to at least in an email to supporters - Grandpa can't exactly throw punches. He's succeeded, though, in hitting the former Mass governor as both a big government liberal and a pro-choicer; for a campaign that's shown little sign of life, it's a step in the right direction (and builds on whatever momentum the endorsement earlier this week carried). I've copied the email below...

Mitt Romney says his government-mandated health care plan is one of his most important accomplishments as governor. But what does his plan really accomplish, and is this the kind of health care plan YOU would want to be forced to pay for?

Today, November 15^th, Massachusetts residents who fail to register with the government and show proof of health care coverage will be slapped with a tax penalty for this year!

For individuals, the amount will be on average $219 this year and they will receive a punitive fine as much as $2,000 over the next year.¹

Small business owner? It's even worse; you'll be fined $295 per employee who isn't enrolled in Romney's government-mandated health care plan!²

So what sort of services does Romney's health care pl an provide?

Per the state website:

$50 co-pay for abortions³

While court mandate requires Massachusetts to cover "medically necessary" abortions in state-subsidized health plans⁴, Mitt Romney's plan covers ALL abortions - no restrictions.⁵

After it passed, Romney vetoed dental care for Medicaid recipients from his health plan, but did nothing to prevent coverage of abortion on demand for a mere $50.⁶

Romney has tried to distance himself from his Hillarycare-type plan,⁷ but you can watch the video where he takes full credit. There's nothing conservative about Mitt Romney's health care plan. It's a government subsidized health care plan that requires citizens to register with the state, slaps working people with tax penalties, and provides $50 abortions on demand.

Contrast this with Fred:

• 100% pro-life voting record.
• Has said repeatedly that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
• Opposes embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.

Tuesday, The National Right to Life Committee endorsed Fred. NRLC is the nation's largest pro-life organization representing over 3,000 local chapters in all 50 states.

Help support the true conservative.

https://www.fred08.com/Contribute.aspx

Thanks for your support,

Todd Harris
Communications Director
Friends of Fred Thompson

The New Threats Watch

Unbeknownst to me (apparently unbenknownst is unbeknownst to blogger's spell-check), Threats Watch has undergone a major face lift; I only noticed when Blackfive made note of it. Check it out, lots of good stuff there. It's also been added to resources waaay down on the right sidebar.

Favorite Article of the Day (yesterday)

Apparently Democrats are a whopping 0 for 40 on votes pertaining to surrendering in Iraq; the one that passed both chambers was vetoed and the override failed. The growing consensus seems to be that Democrats have waited too long and been too impotent and that the surge's success in recent months has cut the ground out from under them.

There's a scene in the second season of West Wing wherein Communications Director Toby Ziegler berates a Knick for going 1 for 27 from the field, noting that "that's one better than my grandmother could do. And she's dead."

DKos to be in Newsweek

Newsweek has apparently decided that its readership isn't satisfied with their in-house leftish nonsense; no they want more. Thus they've contracted with Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Kos of DailyKos, to be among their 2008 correspondents. They've promised to find an equally obnoxious right-winger; my first thought is "what's David Duke up to?"

For his part, Ed Morrisey - far more fair-minded than I - views this as a fundamentally good thing for the blogosphere.

I also think, David Duke comments aside, that it'll be hard to find a right wing equivalent to Kos; as a whole, the left wing blogosphere is far angrier and more obscene; they lack the measured voices of a Captain Ed or a Glenn Reynolds (don't believe me? Take a look at firedoglake).

DiFi versus Her Own Party

I've come to have a rather grudging respect for Dianne Feinstein in recent weeks and months; especially on judicial issues, California's senior senator has had the chutzpah to do whats right and stand up to the rabid among her party (who am I kidding? They're all rabid). This was especially evident on two votes - to get Leslie Southwick (confirmed by the Senate on 10/24) out of committee and to get AG Mukasey out committee - for which she was widely reviled.

Now she may get a slap on the wrist from the California Democratic Party for her...you know...doing what the Constitution says she's supposed to do; a bunch of Left Coast "progressive" organizations are seeking her censure at this weekend's party executive meeting. The story's here, though it's from Huff Po so be warned.

Huckabee Surprises

So it's no secret that I'm somewhat fond of Mike Huckabee - I like him as a human being, which is more than I can say about most other presidential candidates (and politicians in general), but I find him weak or poorly-informed on many crucial issues (especially foreign policy) and disturbingly populist on the economic front.

Therefore it's with mixed feelings that I report this latest CBS/New York Times poll, which has Huckabee at 21% in Iowa - only 6 points behind field leader Mitt Romney. Of course he's only really seeing progress in Iowa; the same poll found him polling at 6% (behind Crazy Uncle Ron) in the Granite State.

All of this may be irrelevant, yet for the same reason raises some interesting points about modern campaigning: $$$. Huckabee's basically broke, whereas Romney's spent a fortune in Iowa - and the two are only separated by six. But that's Iowa, and he's unlikely to translate even a strong second-place finish there into success elsewhere unless he collects a lot of checks in the interim.

While we're at it, the same poll also shows the widely accepted Democratic dead heat in Iowa - Clinton 25%, Obama 22%, Edwards 23%. It doesn't seem as if Iowa voters are bothered by her issues in recent weeks (even though some, like the planted questions mini-scandal, have occured in their backyard), but if on Thursday night in Las Vegas she turns in a debate performance like that in Philly, well that may begin to change.

Spanish King Slaps Down Chavez

Monarchy certainly still has its uses - as when King Juan Carlos of Spain, at a summit in Chile, told Venezuelan Idiot-in-Chief Hugo Chavez to shut up. It's not like Chavez didn't have it coming - he publicly denounced former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, then going on to claim that fascists are (to borrow a term from one) untermensch, and that snakes have more in common with humans than fascists. Cute - and this bastard is idolized by the American Left.

Of course Chavez, el macho man that he is, can't take his very public shaming quietly; instead he's lashed out at the King, claiming that his majesty had advanced knowledge of the anti-Chavez coup of 2002. If the king knew, he's got a perfect chance to call out Chavez for the authoritarian thug he is; he should say nothing less than "Yes, I knew; and given your actions since then - a tyrannical, authoritarian thug who is willingly undermining his nation's future - I wish it had succeeded."

New Democratic House Strategy

Huh. Rahm Emanuel, Chris Van Hollen and the rest of the crowd at the D-Trip have come up with an interesting new strategy for disbursing their financial resources: among Democratic incumbents, only spend in those districts where the NRCC is spending.

It's smart: they're playing a lot of offense next year, and unless incumbents are in deep trouble, they can take care of themselves. Given the enormous cash disparity between the two parties, Republicans won't be targeting many incumbent Democrats anyways. For those Dems who are already flush with cash and in conservative districts, not having the national party visible in their district may allow them to further themselves from their egregiously unpopular national party.

This is also emblematic of the way in which the Democratic Party's pulling ahead of the GOP on the ground - the money helps of course, and they still haven't beaten the Republican Party's infamous "72 Hour Plan" GOTV operation, but they're learning. Thankfully, the national environment in 08 is unlikely to be anywhere near as poisonous to Republicans as it was in 06.

Churchill and the Jews

"Churchill and the Jews" is the entirely un-PC title of a good-looking book by Martin Gilbert, reviewed on today's Opinion Journal; it opens with a Churchill quote I'd never heard before: "Why should we Anglo-Saxons apologize for being superior? We are superior."

Which brought to mind perhaps the most absurd comment of the week, that by Columbia U professor George Saliba: "All modern discoveries are by Muslims scientists." I'll leave you to ponder that one.

Top 100 Conservatives and Liberals

The UK's Telegraph has compiled their list of the top 100 liberals and conservatives in America, based on well...I'm not entirely sure what. They defend from the outset Bush's exclusion from the top 20 on the conservative side. I'm not sure their defense is so necessary - he's not exactly well-loved by anyone these days. I'll just make a few observations.
Conservatives:
- I've got problems with many if not most of their top 20 - Giuliani at #1? Really? While it's somewhat vindicated by Robertson's endorsement, I doubt they weren't being prescient.
- Petraeus at #2 and Gates at #7 are especially eyebrow-raising. Gates more so than Petraeus.
- Drudge at #4? He's still got clout, but his glory days are over - he was the front edge of the wave, and now we're inundated.
- Andrew Sullivan? Drew Carey?
- What's their thing with Giuliani and his coterie?
- Rove is absurdly low at #42...he may be out but he ain't that down
- PJ O'Rourke above Scalia and Jindal?
- Chuck Norris?!
- O'Reilly at #82 is absurd

Liberals:
- I'm just amused that Mark Penn is ranked above Her Majesty
- Bayh at #11? In what world?
- Kos at #12? Thanks for handing the party over to the crazies, Telegraph!
- Edwards (Elizabeth) over Edwards (John)...
- Howard Dean at #84? Below Sorkin, Streisand, Colbert, some rank and file Reps...
- (unless I missed him) no Charlie Rangel? The man's going to try and rewrite the tax code - he's a pretty important liberal right now...

Wow this is a discombobulated post.

[ed: I meant to blog on this a few days ago...whoops]

Remember, Remember the 5th of November

The 5th of November, known in England as Guy Fawkes Day, may become known in the US as the Ron Paul Crazies day: if you missed it, on Monday Ron Paul hauled in some $4.2 million, a single day record for a US politician. Hooray for a few thousand weirdos in their parents basements with internet connections and credit cards; the charges will probably be bookended by subscriptions to internet porn and Dungeons & Dragons memorabilia. To be fair, it was 35,000 basement-dwelling troglodytes...I can't wait for this particular pile of FEC data to be released.

The Politico story linked to above is titled "Ron Paul Gets Relevant in a Hurry" - I think that's a a dramatic overstatement - while he will be able to afford plenty of airtime in Iowa and New Hampshire, it doesn't matter if you don't have supporters in-state. Those 35,000 donors are likely scattered across the country, without any real geographic focus - and even if they are, some 65,000 votes were cast in New Hampshire's open primary in 2004 (open meaning voters can select either ballot).

The whole Guy Fawkes tribute thing sort of creeps me out - and brings to mind this YouTube video, which was the first I'd heard of their November 5th plot (for what it's worth, they fell far short of their 100,000 donor goal there).

Given that I'm two days late on this, I'll just link to some more coverage and analysis:
Hot Air
A Politico piece on Trevor Lyman, the man behind Ron Paul
Captain's Quarters
More to come, perhaps? Again, no Republican Party tag for Crazy Uncle Ron.

Yowza

When Sam Brownback dropped out of the race a few weeks ago, there was some chatter that perhaps he'd endorse Rudy Giuliani, thus giving him some badly-needed credibility among social conservatives. Well, Brownback will endorse McCain this afternoon.

Rudy, for his part, has gone one better: he'll be endorsed by religious leader Pat Robertson. For a candidate whose always been criticized for being too liberal on the social issues, this is a huge leg up, and comes in the wake of Romney's endorsement by Paul Weyrich, one of the major players in the founding days of the Religious Right. Romney, I think, has gotten more major endorsements from the leading social conservatives than either Giuliani or McCain, but I also think Giuliani's got the momentum overall.

I do think, however, that Fred Thompson has been left standing at the door by the Religious Right. I for one think that it's too late for him; he should close up shop and go back to Law & Order.

Also hurt by these endorsements is Mike Huckabee; he was the natural for the support of men like Robertson and Brownback, and their shunning him basically dooms him to the second tier.

2007 Weblogs Awards

It's that time of year again - [I didn't blog on it last year] - the 2007 Weblogs Awards. Several of my favorites are up, and you can vote every 24 hours - so what are you waiting for? My personal nominees:
Best Blog: Captain's Quarters
Best Individual Blogger: Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit)
Best Comic Strip: Day by Day
Best Online Community: Little Green Footballs
Best Conservative Blog: Captain's Quarters
Best Political Coverage: Real Clear Politics
Best Military Blog: Michael Yon OR Blackfive - I'm torn
Best Podcast: The Glenn and Helen Show

Oh and browse the other categories - there's some cool stuff...

VoteGopher.Com

I generally distrust Facebook as a source of political anything, but I got invited to a group today for something called VoteGopher (founded, like Facebook itself, by an ambitious Haavaad undergrad). Apparently the premise of VoteGopher.com is that the site does issue research (on some 18 topics) allowing people to compare candidates; others have tried it before, but this looks like it might be a valuable resource in part because it harnesses the power of the Internet to provide both candidate overviews on a given issue but also videos, quotes, and news stories. God I love the internet.

The effort also gets some love from the Times (perhaps undermining its hoped-for impartiality) here.


Until I decide whether or not it's a biased hack job, I'll add it to my sidebar...

Pity the Fools?

I'm not going to describe them as thankless jobs, but both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi find themselves in uncomfortable spots. Their approval numbers make the president look like Bono (or at least Britney), Bush has rediscovered Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution (vetoes), and then there's the party itself. In the first episode of The West Wing, a leader of the Religious Right tells Chief of Staff Leo McGarry "Every group has plenty of demons" to which Leo replies "You don't have to tell me about it, Reverend. I'm a member of the Democratic Party."

Pelosi and Reid would only succeed in shutting up their foaming at the mouth base if they withdrew from Iraq yesterday, impeached (and probably lynched - or at least sent to the ICC) just about anyone who's ever stepped foot in the White House, and nationalized the means of production - to say nothing of locking up Rush Limbaugh and effectively rendering the homeland vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Given that they can't do any of that, the leadership is deadlocked. Congressional Republicans, for their part, have maintained the discipline that was a hallmark of the Tom Delay era. They've also taken a page from the Democratic playbook and are using what they can to hold up Democratic legislation and force votes on matters that Pelosi and Reid would rather push under the rug (the condemnations of MoveOn.org, for example). Thus Congress goes nowhere and Democrats find themselves beset on every side.

I don't pity them, I just laugh mercilessly. Politico's got a piece on this whole impasse here.

Who's Conservative and What That Means

About ten days ago, David Brooks wrote a column in the Times about former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. That piece precipitated a veritable deluge (just to provide a small sample: 1, 2, 3, and the best-titled of the pack, William Jennings Huckabee) of Huckabee pieces, first just taking notice and then moving to criticisms and defenses and arguably culminating in a column by the candidate himself (and likely literally himself as he's been known to eschew speech-writers).

The arc of the debate basically went like this: who the hell is Mike Huckabee? He's a social conservative, claimed many of the earliest writers. Then came John Fund's piece (I believe the third of those above), with its devastating quote from the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly: "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

The criticisms are of two varities: Huckabee as a false social conservative (I don't buy it) and Huckabee as simply not a fiscal conservative. The latter concern has become sufficiently grave in some circles that there's a story on Politico today in which fiscal conservatives are concerned about the prospect of him becoming the vice presidential nominee. Concern about his fiscal conservatism are based not only on pieces like William Jennings Huckabee (mentioned above) but also in his campaign rhetoric. The Politico piece suggests that the opposition is motivated by Huckabee's being "anti-greed" (so he's not Gordon Gecko I suppose), but it speaks to a larger issue: Huckabee is an economic populist.

I'm no fan of populism (in fact it invariably brings to mind a fantastic quote from the first season of HBO's Rome, uttered by Cicero "What a dreadful noise plebes make when they are happy"), especially from a Republican presidential candidate. But in a VP nominee, it's not entirely illogical - in fact it might help counteract the populism that Hillary will invariably spout. Whether or not Grover Norquist et al. can derail Huckabee's bid for the spot remains to be seen. Either way, it's interesting to see this debate, and interesting to see Huckabee's conservative credentials criticized.

On the other side of the equation is an op-ed in today's WaPo by David Greenberg slamming Giuliani (from the left) for being a conservative. He rightly argues that the perception of Giuliani as a liberal is based on his stances on guns, gays, and abortion (though he erroneously argues that Giuliani only moderately strays from Republican orthodoxy on those three). His argument for Giuliani-as-conservative is summed up in the following two passages:

On issues such as free speech and religion, secrecy and due process, civil rights and civil liberties, pornography and democracy, this moralist and self-styled lawman has exhibited all the key hallmarks of Bush-era conservatism.
...
As any New Yorker can tell you, the last word anyone in the 1990s would have attached to the brash, furniture- breaking mayor was "liberal" -- and the second-to-last was "moderate." With his take-many-prisoners approach to crime and his unerring pro-police instincts, the prosecutor-turned-proconsul made his mark on the city not by embracing its social liberalism but by trying to crush it.
...
They include state support of religion; the legitimacy of dissenting speech; the president's right to keep information secret; the place of fair procedures in dispensing justice.

First off, since when is being pro-law enforcement a conservative trait? Is that to say, Professor Greenberg, that Democrats are pro-anarchy? Not that I'd disagree with that claim...
But what are his claims for Giuliani trying to crush liberalism? His attack on the Brooklyn Museum of Art, with its exhibition featuring the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung as an assault on free speech; all Giuliani really did was try and withhold funds from the museum, a move that only in New York (and San Francisco) could be criticized. It also brings up the larger argument about whether or not the state should be subsidizing art or whether that should be left to the private sector.

I'm not disputing many of his positions as conservative (in fact I embrace them), but Greenberg's being a typically liberal melodramatic about these; I'm glad, though, that he's disputing the conventional wisdom of Giuliani's liberalism and making him more palatable to the Republican party.

But it speaks to the state of the Republican race when a conservative can be attacked as liberal and a "liberal" as conservative. It's still a long road to Minneapolis next summer.

Tom Tancred Out

Of the House at least - he's still running for "president." Some presidential candidates are actually running for Vice President (Huckabee); I wouldn't actually say Tancredo's that ambitious. He's more running for head of the Border Patrol than anything else.

Of course the media will likely play this as part of that big bad wave of GOP retirements. There's a certain wisdom in that, but I don't think most pundits have yet realized that 2008's environment may bear little resemblance to that of 2006. Some of the open seats will flip because they're not Republican strongholds but Tancredo's, the Colorado 7th, won't. Bush won the district with 60% of the vote in both 2000 and 2004, and Tancredo's won comfortably for years (67% in 2002, 59% in 2004, 60% in 2006). This is a bright red district in a purplish state.

Ron Paul and the Troofers

I, along with the rest of the conservative blogosphere, applauded the other night when former President Clinton smacked down a bunch of 9/11 conspiracy theorists in Minnesota.

Which only sharpens the contrast and underlines the importance of the following question: why in God's name did Ron Paul pay the leader of these paranoid idiots $1,300 for "services?
What exactly are these services? Promoting him to his fellow black helicopter/Trilateral Commission believers? The Paul campaign's increasingly got questions to answer - hate groups, conspiracy theorists, and Islamists have all jumped into his camp. It's an unsavory swamp inhabited by many of the most disreputable elements of American society yet Dr. Paul has yet to publicly denounce many of them...indeed he may be embracing them. (h/t Captain's Quarters).

For the record, I'll no longer tag Ron Paul-related posts as "Republican Party." He's too far off the reservation to merit that anymore.

A Good Weekend for the Bears?

I don't know why, but after a few weeks of silence, my first post will be about...football. As I said, don't ask.

But do ask yourself this: could it be a very good weekend for the Bears? The answer may just be yes.

Let's review: thus far this season, the Bears have looked more or less godawful. A D that's so completely banged up as to be almost beyond recognition (starting safety Mike Brown out for the season, Darwin Walker out, Dusty Dvoracek out, Tommie Harris playing at 70-80% of potential). A change at quarterback. Thankfully Tank Jones, his pit bulls, and home arsenal are no longer around to distract us.

It also hasn't been a particularly win-heavy season: only victories against a bad KC Chiefs squad, a somewhat impressive win over an overrated Packers team (but hey, we beat the Pack!), and last Sunday's win over the Philly Eagles. It's that last that was really the ray of light: Brian Griese - the beneficiary of that midseason switch at QB - led the team on a late 4th quarter drive down the field, 97 yards in all, for the winning touchdown. He also didn't throw a pick. If it had been Rex Grossman, both of these would have been shocking.

The losses for their part have been heinous - never mind the loss to San Diego, in large part because a TV guide wire got in the way, or the loss to a Dallas team that's clearly talented (though no where near as talented as the inhumanly good Patriots). It's the defeats at the hands of the Lions and Vikings that rankle.

This week, the Lions come to Soldier field. I don't know why, but I'm feeling good about this one. Yes the Lions are 4-2, but they're more illusion than reality. They've beaten the Raiders (big whoop), the Vikings, the Bears, and the Buccaneers - none are especially stellar teams. They've also lost to the Eagles and the Redskins - 34-3. A win here puts the Bears at 4-4 and at 2-2 in the division (Lions will be 2-1). A loss means the Lions are starting to pull away from the Bears (their two meetings will have been concluded) although it'd hardly be wise to crown them NFC North champs as they haven't played the Pack yet.

But to make things even juicier, both the Packers and Vikings may have a tough time winning this weekend. The Vikings are playing the Eagles about which a lot can be said. Assuming the Eagles stop Adrian Petersen, they basically win. The Packers play Denver, a team which has had its moments, at Denver (an undeniable advantage). And if the final play comes down to Denver kicker Jason Elam's leg, it's over for the Vikes - Elam's kicked the game-winning FG in every one of Denver's three wins this season, including last weekend's against the Steelers.

But what does it really matter? Whoever wins the NFC this year gets crushed by the Patriots. It's that simple. Unless of course Tom Brady breaks a leg or something, which I certainly hope doesn't happen (oh and they're only getting better as Richard Seymour may return in a few weeks...).

Right now, I have to expect the sacrificial lamb to come out of the NFC East, either Dallas or the Giants. Which begs the question did anyone look at a map when putting the NFC East together? Dallas is west of the Mississippi; it's east of Austin? While we're on topic of stupid things in the NFL, Miami LB Channing Crowder (the Dolphins are 0-7 and stink like week-old fish play in London this weekend) only recently learned that in fact he won't need a translator in London as people there speak English. Incredible.

A Thought on Last Night's Debate

I'll preface this post by saying that I didn't watch last night's debate. Why? Because a) they're pointless and b) I wasn't near a TV. Even so, a>b in terms of why.

The storyline going in was the anticipation surround Fred's debate debut. The storyline coming out was Romney and Giuliani going at it over taxes and spending.

Now I doubt that there was any collusion between the two campaigns, but I suspect that going in, advisers on both sides strongly suggested that the candidates go after the other. There'd been some low-level sparring on these issues previously, and there were three big benefits to taking it public:

1) Voters care.
2) It's something other than Iraq
3) It minimizes the Fred Thompson angle.

It worked, though it's not clear who came out on top.

Oh and while we're on the topic, one of the coverage gems I've found thus far comes from Chris Cilizza:

Fred Thompson KNOWS Andy Griffith

Fred Thompson is making sure voters know he is from the South.

After Huckabee unloosed one of his classic lines -- how America needs to approach energy security with the speech of a NASCAR pit crew rather than like the old family station wagon serviced by "Goober and Gomer" -- Thompson jumped in to say that he probably needed to explain to his friends on the stage who Goober and Gomer were.

See? Thompson knows "The Andy Griffith Show." Thompson is from the South. Thompson -- unlike Mike Huckabee -- can win the general election.

Case closed?

For the Barristers

Want to know everything there is to know about Michael Mukasey, Bush's AG nominee? Here's his questionnaire as returned to Leahy. No, I didn't read the whole thing.

The Lessons of Burma

They're not pretty.

[Speed-blogging at its finest.]

CQ Looks West

Another CQ regional House race analysis, this time looking at the West.

Broken Arms on Capitol Hill

Democratic House Whip James Clyburn (SC) predicts that he's about 15 Republican votes away from overriding the president's veto of S-CHIP (speaking of stalking horses...). Do my generation a favor, call/email your Rep and remind them that S-CHIP is a foot in the door for socialized medicine. Tell them you know they're not anti-kid if they vote against. I think a lot of Republicans need to hear this.

Oh and I'll spend some time tomorrow looking for a list of which Republican Reps have flipped from the first S-CHIP vote; if you find one, let me know?

Rush a Stalking Horse?

I'm starting to wonder whether this whole Rush Limbaugh/"phony soldiers" brouhaha - which, by the way, Rush said nothing close to what the Left alleges - is merely a Democratic stalking horse for the Fairness Doctrine. After all, Rush is Talk Radio, that evil menace to democracy that needs to be policed by the FCC. Michelle Malkin and I are on the same page; The Hill also agrees.

Can't Wait to Read It

Over the summer, I read (reread?) Rick Atkinson's Army at Dawn; I reviewed it here. Now, as OpFor so kindly reminds me, the second part of his trilogy was just released. If it wasn't for classes, I'd rush out to pick it up.

More on the "Third Party"

As I've already noted, some social conservatives floated a third party candidate trial balloon, then quickly hauled it in when it proved to be leaden. Via Instapundit, Slublog sounds off and is worth reading - he clearly understands the consequences of an imbecilic third party bid. Hey Dobson, you listening?

Speed Blogging!

In an effort to be productive late into the night, I caffeinated. Ironically, I over-caffeinated and thus am for the foreseeable future, too caffeinated to work. Ergo I'll speed blog - limited deep analysis, lots of articles. Think of it as Instapundit Ultra-Lite - because I can't even claim to be Diet Glen Reynolds.

Finally!

It's been a headache multiple times in the past for reasons that are entirely inexplicable to me, but if you look down the page on the right side, you can finally see a Technorati-driven "tag cloud" - a quick way to see what I've been blogging about.

Third Party? Maybe Not...

The threatened third-party candidate backed by disenchanted Religious Right leaders (one reader suggested Alan Keyes?) is suddenly looking less likely, according to Marc Ambinder.

Battleground: Heartland

CQ's regional examination of competitive House races in the Midwest...

More on Ron Paul's Fundraising

The Journal's Washington Wire puts Ron Paul's surprising fundraising success ($3 million in Q3) in perspective. He's done better than Mike Huckabee, yet the former Arkansas governor - but Huckabee at least placed well at the Ames straw poll.

What this piece doesn't mention is the contrast with John McCain, who apparently has some $2 million in debts - as well as enough raised this quarter to repay them if he chooses (no links now - also worth noting that he'll likely keep those on the books rather than throw away so much of his hard-won cash).

Marc Ambinder reviews the whole Republican field's fundraising successes (or lack thereof), though he makes no mention of Texas's craziest son. Giuliani's campaign still isn't releasing numbers, but given that Rudy's chief fundraiser was pink-slipped last week, they're below expectations. If the former mayor can't raise some serious cash by year's end, Romney and others will be able to attack his claims of electability on the money front...though truth be told, Romney can already do that.

Oh the Humanity...

In recent days, the death toll in Myanmar/Burma's unsuccessful Saffron Revolution has risen from a mere handful to thousands. The Daily Mail reports, based on interviews with the highest junta officer to have defected, that thousands of protesters and hundreds of monks have been killed
while perhaps two thousand more are being held prisoner.

Meanwhile the UN's envoy continues "seeking meetings with the ruling military junta." Ace thoughtfully explores the hand-wringing of the Left with regard to Burma in comparison to their adoration of Ahmadinejad at Columbia last week, and underlines the fact that "for the left the proper way -- the only way -- to deal with brutal murderers and tyrants is to caterwaul about it and peacock-preen their pretty feathers of righteous indignation."

Thankfully, there is also beginning to be chatter about making China pay for their unwavering support of Burma's blood-stained generals. Perhaps the most effective, and public means of doing so would be a boycott of next summer's Olympic Games in Beijing, which is now being advocated by activists.


What I find ironic is that while the death toll has continued to rise in Darfur in spite of public outrage in the West, it takes a courageous protest and the resultant bloodletting to bring Burma into focus. There has been little chatter about the fact that both the Sudanese and Myanmarese regimes are Chinese clients, that Beijing is willing to support these murderous regimes in a quid pro quo. In the case of the Sudan, this is in exchange for access to the country's natural resources; in Myanmar, for access to ports on the Indian Ocean.

I think the West, by doing little more than wringing our hands and expressing our outrage without doing anything concrete to support the pro-democracy protesters (sorry, wearing red in solidarity doesn't count) has lost some of the moral high ground we claim to hold. Yes, we lose it through inaction - through sitting idly by and allowing dictatorial regimes to butcher their people, not through intervening in dictatorial regimes to prevent such butchery. But the left will never admit that.

It's the First Monday in October

And that means the Supreme Court is back in session! The Las Vegas Review-Journal gives a good roundup of the major cases the court will be hearing in the near future (as well as one they'll likely hear):

The most high-profile case on the court's calendar is probably one involving Guantanamo detainees. Lawyers for some of those held at the Cuban base will maintain that a U.S. law allowing the indefinite imprisonment of terror suspects should not prevent challenges in U.S. courts to their confinement.

The Bush administration argues that Guantanamo prisoners are treated fairly.

"This is the most generous set of procedures ever afforded to a nation's military adversaries in the history of the world. They are, however, far short of what would be afforded a U.S. citizen caught up in the civilian justice system," said Brad Berenson, who served under Mr. Bush in the White House counsel's office.

We see little danger, however, that terror suspects who truly threaten the United States would be released if they were allowed to avail themselves of U.S. jurisprudence.

Other major cases include:

• Voter ID: Democrats want the court to toss out state laws that require voters to identify themselves at the polls. Oh, the humanity! Maintaining the integrity of the electoral process is an important matter. The identification requirement is a minimal burden that the justices should uphold.

• Lethal injection: This will be an interesting case. Death penalty opponents maintain that this method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. OK. But is there any means of execution that would be acceptable to them? Probably not. Liberal court observers who complain about this panel's lack of respect for precedent may find themselves in a bit of a pickle, here, given justices have ruled repeatedly over the years that the death penalty itself is not inherently "cruel and unusual."

• Crack cocaine: Thanks to U.S. sentencing guidelines, sellers of crack cocaine -- who often happen to be black -- are subject to more stringent criminal penalties in the federal system than sellers of powder cocaine -- who often happen to be white. The issue before the court is whether a federal judge has the discretion to impose a more lenient sentence on those who sell crack. In fact, many of these hard and fast sentencing mandates go too far in taking away the ability of judges to analyze an individual case and act appropriately. Let's hope the justices agree.

• Government bonds: In this case out of Kentucky, the justices must decide whether a state can treat interest income from municipal bonds differently if they are from out of state rather than from in state. If the court upholds a ruling that the practice is unconstitutional it will have major implications for investors

• Child porn: Is it a crime to promote child pornography by talking about it even if you don't possess it? That's what the justices must determine in a case involving a man whose conviction was overturned after an appeals court ruled that a federal law criminalizing such activity is unconstitutional. The prohibition against actually possessing such images is not at issue.

A case not yet on the docket involves Washington, D.C.'s, strict gun ban. Many people expect the justices to soon accept the matter, in which an appeals court struck down the ban as an affront to the Second Amendment.

If so, it will likely become the most watched matter on the docket -- and present the justices with the opportunity to reaffirm that the Second Amendment gives individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms.

Ogonowski Pt. 2

Here's that Ogonowski ad I referenced in my previous post (again, I love YouTube).